Count Metternich and his counterparts at the Congress of Vienna hoped to
return to the old system, with its hereditary monarchy, established church, and
privileged landowning aristocracy. However, the day of the Old Order had passed;
the American and French revolutions had created profound changes in political
thought that are still extant. They were radical changes from the established
order, which the new thinkers rejected.

Liberalism:

Liberalism was a product of enlightenment
thinking, and held that human progress was inevitable. Liberals believed that
all people should be equal before the law; all were born free, were basically
good, and capable of improvement. Liberalism expected all governments to be
representative, (rather than autocratic), freedom of the press, speech,
assembly, and from arbitrary arrest.

Nineteenth century liberalism, commonly known as "classical liberalism,"
opposed government intervention in social programs and economic affairs. It is
quite different from modern day American liberalism (represented by the
Democratic Party) which supports active government intervention to meet social
needs and regulate the economy.

Classical Liberals favored an economic policy of unrestrained private
enterprise, commonly known as Laissez Faire. The prevailing
philosophy was "that government is best which governs least." Government was to
remain completely aloof from economic interference. This principle was first
proposed by Adam Smith in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. Smith had proposed "free" enterprise, where market forces
would regulate price. He believed that such a system would give all citizens a
free and equal chance to do what they did best. Under such a system, everyone,
not just the rich, would benefit. Smith’s proposition was in marked contrast to
the old system of mercantilism in which the government actively intervened to
regulate markets. (For instance the Navigation Acts and Tea Act of the
seventeenth/eighteenth centuries which forced the American Colonies to deal
exclusively with British merchants.) Smith’s argument was for equal economic
opportunity for all. The writings of Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo were also
influential. Malthus had argued that the population would always grow faster
than the supply of food, and Ricardo’s "Iron Law of Wages" had said that because
of population growth, wages would always be barely sufficient to keep people
from starving. A fourth liberal economic thinker was Jeremy Bentham who argued
that laws should be judged by their social utility; did they provide "the
greatest good for the greatest number." The standard question he posited for any
law or regulation was, "Does it work?"

Liberalism became very popular in Britain during the Industrial revolution,
particularly with Factory owners, as the demand for workers was always much less
than the supply. Smith’s Laissez Faire capitalism was all the justification they
needed to operate their factories and deal with their employees as they saw fit.
They even used it to support the outlaw labor unions as they presumably
interfered with the employee’s "right to work." The writings of Malthus and
Ricardo were used to justify opposition to any form of government action to
protect the rights of workers. They argued that if the workers were poor, it was
their own fault, because they multiplied like rabbits.

Politically, liberals supported representative government, but believed that
only male property owners should have the franchise; although with time, the
franchise was broadened. Few supported universal male suffrage, but the
requirements of property were gradually reduced. Part of the inspiration for
this idea was Jacksonian Democracy in the United States, in which every man was
entitled to vote. Liberals also supported universal education, as this was
deemed a way for individuals to improve themselves.

Nationalism:

Nationalism: Nationalism was a radical
ideology, as was liberalism after the final defeat of Napoleon. It evolved from
a real or imagined cultural identity, which is represented by a common language,
common history, and common territory. Nationalists traditionally attempt to turn
this cultural identity into a political identity, whereby political boundaries
coincide with cultural unity*for example, "France" is composed of French
speaking people who consider themselves French. The preceding example may seem
overly simplistic; but when one considers the large number of ethnic groups
forced to live under a government comprised of another ethnic group, such as in
Russia, or nineteenth century Austria, the problem becomes more apparent. The
overlapping and intermingling of groups, each seeking to establish its own
identity, can easily become an explosive situation.

Nationalism as a principal was the child of the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic wars. During the Reign of Terror, the Republic's leaders appealed to
the people as Frenchmen to repel the foreign armies which hoped to overthrow the
republic and re-establish the Ancien Regime. During Napoleon's invasions,
nationalist sentiments throughout Europe consolidated opposition to his military
campaigns.

Perhaps the most concise definition of Nationalism was that of the German
Philosopher Johann Herder, who argued that every people has its
own particular spirit and genius, which it expresses through culture and
language. Unwittingly, Herder also alluded to the negative side of nationalism,
that nationalist sentiments often generate feelings of "we" and "they," when
"they" easily devolve into the enemy. The identification of "we" and "they"
quickly led to a sense of national superiority, and in some cases a sense of a
nationalist mission. Manzini once wrote, "People never stop before they have
achieved the ultimate aim of their existence, having fulfilled their mission."
Nazi Germany is a classic example of Nationalism gone awry. Yet another example
is the "superiority of France," espoused by Michelet in 1846, who stated that
the principles of the French Revolution had made France "the salvation of
mankind." Needless to say, nineteenth century German and Spanish nationalists
saw France as an oppressor, not a savior.

Compare this with the Mexican War in which the United States gained large
portions of Mexican territory, and John Louis O’Sullivan’s declaration that
taking land from "an imbecile and distracted Mexico," was a logical step in the
"fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allowed by
Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."
Obviously a statement of superiority and of a mission.

Socialism:

Socialism was a radical doctrine with roots in
France. Almost all socialist thinkers were French. They saw the French
Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England as the beginning of a
dramatic transformation in society, but were troubled by what they saw as it’s
the end result of that transformation, such as capitalism and political
competition for votes. They argued that these developments caused selfish
individualism and divided society up into competing factions. Individual French
thinkers went in different directions, yet all envisioned a utopian concept.

Early French socialists advocated economic planning, perhaps inspired by the
emergency measures in late eighteenth century France. They argued that the
government should organize the economy and not depend on competition to do so,
as competition was ultimately destructive. They also had a passionate desire to
protect the poor from exploitation by the rich; arguing that rich and poor
should be economically equal. They also argued that private property should be
regulated by the government, or abolished altogether and replaced by community
ownership.

French Utopian Socialism was a direct result of the post revolutionary
stresses on the French economy. Workers cherished the memory of the "good old
days" of the radical phase of the revolution when economic life was regulated.
Skilled craftsmen, with a long tradition of guilds, apprenticeships and wage
controls vehemently opposed laissez faire capitalism, which they believed denied
workers the right to organize and promoted destructive competition. Yet these
ideas had little influence outside of France. Their economic arguments were
weak, and their specific programs were too fanciful to be taken seriously.

Among the early Socialist thinkers:

Count Henri de Saint-Simon: (1760 – 1825) Saint-Simon in a
fit of utopian fervor once wrote that "the age of gold is upon us!" He
argued that proper social organization was required if society was to
progress. The arrangement required the "parasites of society," that is
the aristocracy, lawyers and churchmen (imagine anyone calling a
lawyer a parasite. Heavens!) must give way to the "doers," the
scientists, industrialists and engineers. The doers would plan the
economy and guide it forward by means of vast public works projects and
establishing investment banks. Every social institution ought to have as
its main goal improvement in the condition of the poor.

Charles Fourier: (1772-1837) An unrealistic dreamer (to be
charitable) who went so far as to compute mathematically the ultimate
socialist utopia. He envisioned self-sufficient communities of 1,620
people living on 50,000 acres which contained a combination of industry
and agriculture. He also said that marriage was only a form of
prostitution, and should be abolished. He rather argued for "free
unions" based only on love and sexual freedom. Fourier expected a rich
philanthropist to show up at his door any day and put his plans to work.
Needless to say, he died disappointed. Even so, his ideas were
influential in establishing "utopian" communities in the United States,
such as those in New Harmony, Indiana and Oneida, New York.

Louis Blanc: (1811 – 1882) Argued that the full power of the
state should be directed at setting up government backed workshops and
factories to guarantee full employment; and that the right to work was a
sacred right, just like life, liberty, etc. In his Organization of
Work, he said workers should agitate for universal voting rights and
take control of the government peacefully.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon: (1809 – 1865): Prudhon advocated the
abolition of private property. In a pamphlet entitled What is
Property? H answered his own question by stating that property
ownership was theft, pure and simple. It was profit that had been stolen
from workers, who were the true source of all wealth.

Karl Marx and Marxism:

Marxist socialism established the
foundation for modern socialism and also planted the seeds for the devolution of
socialism into Communism. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) was the German son of a Jewish
lawyer who had converted to Christianity, but was himself an atheist. He studied
philosophy at the University of Berlin and later journalism and economics. He
was particularly influenced by Fourier’s ideas of the abolition of marriage
which he believed would lead to the "emancipation" of women and the abolition of
the family as a unit. Later, Marx developed his own ideas about socialism and
became its chief proponent. Marx fled to England as a political refugee after
the revolutions of 1848, discussed later. He adopted the thoughts of David
Ricardo, who said that labor was the source of all value. Marx later argued that
profits were actually wages stolen from the poor. He also adopted Friedrich
Engels’ ideas of the oppression of the working class.

Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 which became
the socialist Bible. Marx was also the author of Das Kapital. Whereas the
early French utopian socialists had argued that the middle class and the state
should help the poor, Marx said that the interests of the middle class and the
working class were unalterably opposed to one another. The Manifesto
argued that the "history of all previously existing society is the history of
class struggles." Marx argued that one class always exploited the other, and
with modern industry, the division of classes was more pronounced than ever
before. He saw this division as between the middle class, or bourgeoisie, and
the working class, or proletariat. The bourgeoisie had reduced everything
to money and "naked self interest." "In a word, for exploitation, veiled by
religious and political illusions, the bourgeoisie had substituted naked,
shameless direct brutal exploitation."

To Marx, this class struggle was represented by small minority who owned the
means of production and grew richer; while the proletariat was growing in size
and poorer, yet also growing in class consciousness. He believed that a small
number of the bourgeoisie would "go over" to the proletariat and who "had raised
themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical moment."
Ultimately, the proletariat would conquer the bourgeoisie in a violent
revolution, just as the bourgeoisie had defeated feudal aristocracy. Marx
believed that the time of this great revolution was very near, as stated in the
last words of the Manifesto: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a
Communist revolution. The proletarians have noting to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win. Workers of the world unite!"

Marx’s ideas gained substantially more acceptance than had the French utopian
socialists. He combined his own ideas of socialism with those of the French
thinkers as well as English classical economics and German philosophy. He based
his theory of historical evolution on the writings of the German philosopher Georg Hegel who argued that history was "ideas in motion," Each age
characterized by a dominant set of ideas which also produced opposing ideas and
eventually a new synthesis. He expressed it as the "thesis gives rise to the
antithesis, which together create the synthesis." Marx adopted this Hegel’s
ideas, but saw economic relationships between classes as the driving force of
history. He often claimed that he had instituted a "scientific study of
history." The historical "thesis" had been aristocracy, and the "antithesis" the
rise of industrial capitalism. To Marx, the bourgeoisie would now give way to
the workers revolution as the logical next step in the progress of history.
Marx’s ability to combine philosophy, history and economics into his ideas were
largely responsible for the overall success of communism. Marx, the atheist,
called religion "the opiate of the masses." As part of his communist revolution,
organized religion was to be abolished.